I meant to say that they should topple Stalin's statues instead of Lenin's...

Why? Lenin was even bigger criminal than Stalin. Stalin would of been noone without Lenin. Hitler got the idea to creat concentration camps from Lenin and Soviet union had them before nazi germany etc.

Stalin abused the remnants of Lenin's revolution. (He became the dictator)

Big difference.

And yes, in revolutions, sometimes people get killed.

Well, Lenin was fighting against legal and lets say democratic government (Duma). Monarchy was out in this time. True, Kierenski was a dictator then and was still continuing war. Still I think Kierenski was lesser evil than Lenin.

Why? Lenin was even bigger criminal than Stalin. Stalin would of been noone without Lenin. Hitler got the idea to creat concentration camps from Lenin and Soviet union had them before nazi germany etc.

Sorry mate but the modern concentration camp is a British thing. We used them to enslave and control people in South Africa, India and so on long before the Soviet coms or Nazi's even existed.

Now turning them into death camps for the industrial scale destruction of the chosen people. Well that one is down to the German peoples not just the Nazi's and what dear old Stalin got up to was small beer in comparison. Unless it happened to you that is and in that case it was a living hell.

Sorry mate but the modern concentration camp is a British thing. We used them to enslave and control people in South Africa, India and so on long before the Soviet coms or Nazi's even existed

Close but no cigar.

The British got the idea from the Spanish who used them in Cuba during their war their war there at the turn of the 18th/19th Century ‘reconcentrados’.

Prior to that the US (Philippines conflicts and Indian wars) and many others had used them although the term concentration camp’ was not used.

Remember that prior to the Nazi use of the terminology, a concentration camp was merely a place to bring together civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war to keep them in one place.

The shameful deaths of women and children in the British South African concentration camps were not because of policy but through ineptitude, The inadequate shelter, poor diet, inadequate hygiene and overcrowding led to malnutrition and endemic contagious diseases such as measles, typhoid and dysentery to which the children were particularly vulnerable. There is no doubt about it that these were a unforgivable episode, but it was not a systematic attempt at genocide. Mind you, as you mentioned the Imperial Germans, had no such qualms in Namibia at Shark Island Concentration Camp in 1905, even the commander of the camp von Zulow used the name "Death Island".

The whole idea of a concentration camp is usually for internal security like the British used the Isle of Man in WW2, rounding up anybody with an Italian or German name and putting them where they can keep an eye on them. The Concentration camps in South Africa where a response to the guerilla tactics of the Boers in the latter stages of the South African war. Deny them their supply base (the women folk who stayed out on the farms when the men went to their Kommando’s) and they would be forced to surrender or at least restrict their operations.

I’m not aware of any such camps in India though, although I wouldn’t be surprised if something like them were used during the breakup of the Empire just after WW2 when you had millions of people moving about the Indian sub-continent.

When you get to the bottom of it, Governments (of even the most liberal countries) can do some evil things in the name of ‘freedom’.

Sorry mate but the modern concentration camp is a British thing. We used them to enslave and control people in South Africa, India and so on long before the Soviet coms or Nazi's even existed

Close but no cigar.

The British got the idea from the Spanish who used them in Cuba during their war their war there at the turn of the 18th/19th Century ‘reconcentrados’.

Prior to that the US (Philippines conflicts and Indian wars) and many others had used them although the term concentration camp’ was not used.

Remember that prior to the Nazi use of the terminology, a concentration camp was merely a place to bring together civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war to keep them in one place.

The shameful deaths of women and children in the British South African concentration camps were not because of policy but through ineptitude, The inadequate shelter, poor diet, inadequate hygiene and overcrowding led to malnutrition and endemic contagious diseases such as measles, typhoid and dysentery to which the children were particularly vulnerable. There is no doubt about it that these were a unforgivable episode, but it was not a systematic attempt at genocide. Mind you, as you mentioned the Imperial Germans, had no such qualms in Namibia at Shark Island Concentration Camp in 1905, even the commander of the camp von Zulow used the name "Death Island".

The whole idea of a concentration camp is usually for internal security like the British used the Isle of Man in WW2, rounding up anybody with an Italian or German name and putting them where they can keep an eye on them. The Concentration camps in South Africa where a response to the guerilla tactics of the Boers in the latter stages of the South African war. Deny them their supply base (the women folk who stayed out on the farms when the men went to their Kommando’s) and they would be forced to surrender or at least restrict their operations.

I’m not aware of any such camps in India though, although I wouldn’t be surprised if something like them were used during the breakup of the Empire just after WW2 when you had millions of people moving about the Indian sub-continent.

When you get to the bottom of it, Governments (of even the most liberal countries) can do some evil things in the name of ‘freedom’.

Yep i get your point mate. But I would suggest you look at the history of British involvement in India. British commanders using classic Roman population control tactics they learned at school as part of there classical education. But with an eye to politics and public opinion.

A simple copycat. But with the twist of telling the people it was for there own good. Ether to go to the camp or expel others to the camp. Dependent on what was most politically expedient at the time. The Spanish just when for the simple round them up and terrorist them approach. Not the same use of consecrations camps as found in the USSR or Nazi Germany and that was my point. The political element and the smock screening of true intent was an inversion of the British.